Paul blasted politicians who blame immigrants for causing the country’s economic problems. He compared the situation to Nazi Germany’s targeting of Jews in the 1930s.
“When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” Paul said. “Hispanics, the immigrants who have come in, are being used as scapegoats.”
Paul said he doesn’t support illegal immigration and said people who break the law should be punished. But he said he opposes any effort to round people up and ship them away.
“If an individual is found to be breaking the law, serious consideration should be given for them to return. But I would think 99 percent of people who come here come because they believe in the American dream,” Paul said to applause.
Paul decried a punitive border policy, which said offended his belief in individual liberty.
“The one thing I have resisted and condemned: I do not believe that barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he said.
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
Indeed, one of the quicker ways to delegitimize the critique of the War on Drugs, in the eyes of black people, would be making Ron Paul the prominent face of the movement. That black people even need to be swayed doesn't seem to occur to Paul's supporters who, admittedly, are unoriginal in viewing African-Americans as the slick paint-job on a pre-fab argument. But the fact is that black people are far from united in their feelings about the criminal justice system in general, and drug crimes in particular.
As an aside, I think there's an essay to be written about why any accusation of a racial offense is so often reduced to 'Are you a racist?' It would be as if my wife said, 'You forgot to check Samori's homework' and I responded, 'I'm not a bad father.'
Aside from us releasing his [Jamie Kelso's] information such as his social security number, address, resume and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops.
Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose--victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged--by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of "not my fault." It is not Ron Paul's fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul's fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul's fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There's always someone else to blame--as long as it isn't Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.
So when this kind of thing came out in his newsletter years ago, that wasn't good enough? Oh, but we can't see his REAL inner thoughts, just the ones he sends in his name to his followers. Maybe is true, private thinking is totally different from what he sent out in his newsletters.
There is a difference, especially when you take into account that racism is a spectrum - every single white person who's ever used a racial slur isn't a card-carrying member of Stormfront. David Duke was an honest-to-goodness KKK Grand Whatever. Newt Gingrich has shown himself to be an unstable sociopath in virtually every other area of his life and career. Ron Paul is a life-long devotee of sociopathy institutionalized as politics - libertarianism.
he actually defended the statements in the letters.
This issue comes up again and again. Paul has taken two stands on it: the first was to take formal responsibility, even though he claims he didn't know about the contents; the second was to insist he didn't write them or know who did. Some of his early responses cited by TNC do seem defensive and cranky. But the notion that he has been actively seeking victimology in all this or that he is defined by these isues seems unfair to me. I think the papers (and comments almost two decades ago) should definitely be considered, in context, when judging his candidacy, and not because the neocons are determined to smear anyone challenging their catastrophic record. But compared with Rick Perry's open bigotry in his ads, or Bachmann's desire to "cure" gays, or the rhetoric around "illegals" in this campaign, these ugly newsletters are very, very old news. To infer from them that Paul is a big racist is a huge subjective leap I leave to others more clairvoyant than myself.
But ask yourself: you've now heard this guy countless times; he's been in three presidential campaigns; he's not exactly known for self-editing. And nothing like this has ever crossed his lips in public. You have to make a call on character. Compared with the rest on offer, compared with the money-grubbing lobbyist, Gingrich, or the say-anything Romney, or that hate-anyone Bachmann, I've made my call.
Is there anything here, or is this just a big pile of innuendo?
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system
Perhaps not surprisingly, reddit's /r/ronpaul has already started trying to justify this:
That's how things go 'round here. Go dig up the old thread on the 'lynched' census worker. Word 'lynched' is used, buttons pushed, off on the various talking points. Didn't matter that the details were thin. The 2 minute hate had to happen and didn't matter that the gruel was thin - there was scenery to chew.
Either he knew the content of those newsletters and didn't think it was that bad (as he originally claimed), and therefore if not racist then he is a craven opportunist who will use racist language to promote himself to racists (even worse!)
OR, he did not know the content of those newsletters and is thus a complete and total moron for letting people publish whatever they like under his masthead with no editorial control.
Ah, the Byrd Corrolary, favorite bullshit argument of people trying to prove that all Democrats are either racists or protect racists. Again, if you don't take anything else that Byrd ever said or did past the 1960s, it's a double standard. But that ignores the fact that he not only publicly repudiated his prior positions multiple times, but unlike Paul,
"Dr. Paul has stated repeatedly that he did not write these words, did not approve them, has disavowed them, and apologized for not exercising better oversight of things being published under his name over 20 years ago," Gary Howard, a spokesman for Mr. Paul's campaign, said Monday.
Maybe you should read up on the arguments for creating the electoral college, then again you are Paul fanatic so delusion runs deep. Plus it has worked quite well with a couple of exwmptions. Since you are such a constitutional scholar, I am sure you know why the founding fathers and others argued for the electoral college.
1995 to 1996
In a 1995 C-Span interview, Paul talks up his newsletter and espouses some familiarity with its contents. He says it deals a lot "with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do."
Paul, having been out of office for a decade, ran for Congress in 1996 and the content of the newsletters were raised by his opponent as a campaign issue. Paul's campaign doesn't deny authorship of the newsletters, but says the Democratic rival is taking the message out of context.
In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul said the comment about black men in the District of Columbia arose from his study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
I am being honest that Ron Paul is either racist, a depraved and craven opportunist, or a moron.
Forgive past racism? No, not really! Racism is unacceptable. When an individual stops being racist, that's a good thing. Forgiveness for racism is not really involved there.
I've been really interested in tracking this blog meme that's cropping up over the last month or so about attacking Democrats for their party's historical racism. It's all over the place - a salty quote or two from LBJ, a complete non-mention of the entire last five decades, and the whole party is handily tarred as hypocritical because once it was the stronghold of Jim Crow and Strom Thurmond.
delmoi - no one has answered my follow-up point: Why is being a moron more acceptable in a presidential candidate?
State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
Paul's reaction was to backpedal, rationalize, and then eventually disavow. Not too fine a difference between the two, I think.
and he's yet to back down from other fucked-up positions.
But on the other hand, Byrd was an official in the KKK.
Dude, just give it up.
But on the other hand, Byrd was an official in the KKK.
No one's telling you to hate him. We're asking why you feel the need to defend his odious policies and ignore how they affect his other policies in context.
So an anti-war moron fucking over the rights of racial minorities, women, gays, and the poor is A-OK?
So Obama's people are covering up the fact that he supports gay marriage. Paul's people are covering up the fact that he anticipates the coming race war.
Is this CIA Anonymous? Was this a Cass Sunstein "Nudge"? You know, Cass Sunstein of the OIRA. I mean, you already know what the OIRA is and who Cass Sunstein is right?
I think that backpedaling and watering down his stance is consistent with what Obama preaches. His election platform promised to build bridges between the parties, and he's always claimed to be a political pragmatist. He says that he wants cooperation and results, not ideology and conflict.
Take them all to task, as far as I'm concerned, the color of their flag doesn't make the immune to criticism by any stretch. But this is a thread about the nazi thing, so it's not outrageously weird to find conversations about that here.
Because there can be quite a difference in the actions of someone motivated by expediency or indifference to indulge racists and the actions of someone who holds these values deeply. Let's be honest - the former has been a part of the American political scene since time began. There's always been opportunists. Real, dedicated KKK/Nazi style "let's start a new Holocaust" style racists, though... is that what we really believe Ron Paul is?
I don't see this as really being against drug laws when he knows that there are only even a handful of states waiting to legalize pot, and that others could just as well come down harder.
To be honest, I bet Obama doesn't believe in marriage inequality, but due to the divisive nature of the issue, he holds off. Hopefully, when his second term occurs ... more liberal policies will be enacted. He has nothing to lose at that point as he will retire from formal politics after his second term.,
You know the countries cut off from the US in a Paul presidency include those who depend on the US for foreign aid?
You can't be so niave to believe politicians do not state positions they don't believe in for votes? A politicians job is to get (re)elected, thus must garnish an electoral win.
And wow! What a great fucking response to solving the question! I suppose we all just shouldnt vote unless a candidate matches 100% of our own individual belief system! -- handbanana
The idea that supporting gay marriage would damage his support among socially conservative black voters is one that was rammed into my head by Obama supporters on this very site. You know what I used to say to it: "Obama losing black support is about as likely as frozen aerial pigs in hell, regardless of their position or his on gay marriage."
Obama has done a ton of great stuff for gay people under the table (like this just a few days ago), as well as some higher profile stuff as mentioned. It's also shitty that he won't defend gay people in public in a lot of ways. Yeah, he's the most powerful man in the US and tells people that he believes that they shouldn't be married due to his religious beliefs. That's shitty.
But this is not about Obama. This is about Ron Paul.
If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.
« Older Chaim Levin appeared in a video as part of the It ... | The Washington State Senate ha... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt